Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant, original, ingenious filmmaking
Review: The first movie to tackle the internalized process of screenwriting, Spike Jonze's dazzlingly original film is also about biology, the need for passion, the inevitability of change and the absolute urgency of adapting to it. Kaufman's ingenious screenplay manages both to lampoon and confirm Robert McKee's asinine admonitions on Hollywood screenwriting - it breaks all the rules AND follows them - but it can do this only because it's constantly drawing attention to the process. It establishes its own terms of reference, it tells you how to watch it - and it works brilliantly. Other films do this, too, such as "Requiem for a Dream" and "Mulholland Drive". These films don't ignore "the rules" of screenwriting so much as invent new ones and take you along for the ride. "Adaptation" isn't as hilariously enchanting as "Being John Malkovich", but that's because this film is thematically more subtle and has a central character who is somewhat less endearing. Kaufman's crippling insecurity, as performed by Cage, is utterly palpable. The other performances are universally excellent, with Streep and Cooper deserving their Golden Globes. Clearly, Kaufman should win the Oscar for this script. He should have won it three years back for "Being John Malkovich". But the Best Adapted Screenplay category is awash with deserving potential nominees this year: "Insomnia", "The Hours", "The Quiet American", "Chicago", "About Schmidt", "Minority Report", "Road to Perdition" ... the list is almost endless. However, following the arcane logic of the Academy, they'll probably give it to "The Two Towers" (one of the worst adaptations ever written) because last year they incomprehensibly neglected to give it to "Fellowship of the Ring" (which, for my money, is all-time best).
Rating: 
Summary: not so fresh
Review: Strip away the wacky creature from the swamp, and "Adaptation" is nothing more than another film about writer's block and the relationship between art and life. Many others have come down this road. The Coen brothers in "Barton Fink". Woody Allen in "Deconstructing Harry". Woody Allen again in "Bullets Over Broadway". Federico Fellini in "8 1/2". So this movie's not really "fresh". It's not even that good. I agree with another reviewer that the Nicholas Cage character is just pathetic. Woody Allen played artsie schmos, too, but Woody at least had charisma, screen presence, and a really big sense of humor. Nic Cage has none of that. yuk. yuk. yuk.
Rating: 
Summary: fresh but boring
Review: this is the kind of film critics have an orgasm over. it's fresh, it's not cut out of the 'hollywood mould', it's quirky in a funny sort of way. a lot like 'being johnny m'. for all that, it's still boring. and it's boring because the central character is boring. you wouldn't want to spend two minutes, much less two hours, with what's his name,...'adaptation' is just another one of those movies that's more fun to make than it is to watch.art film? yes. fun film? no.
Rating:
Summary: ¿Adaptation¿ is smart, funny, and the best movie of 2002
Review: When asked to adapt Susan Orlean's book The Orchid Thief into a screenplay, writer Charlie Kaufman (Being John Malkovich) simply could not do it. He could not find any dramatic story line whatsoever in Orlean's book, and, therefore, resorted to writing a screenplay about himself, his screenwriting problems, and his fictional twin brother, Donald Kaufman. What resulted was Adaptation, directed by Spike Jonze (who also brought us Being John Malkovich), a film that is audacious, playful, intelligent, and perplexing, and also the best movie of 2002. In the beginning of the film, we meet Charlie Kaufman (played by Nicolas Cage). Charlie is an ethical and intelligent person, and we also learn that he is quite lonely, painfully shy, and miserable. He is nervous around women, worried about deadlines, yet is smart enough to be able to recognize his problems. However, he is too anxious to do anything to mend his imperfections. The audience also meets Charlie's twin, Donald Kaufman (also played by Cage). Donald may lack Charlie's sophistication, but is more free-spirited, has a knack for meeting women, and has much aplomb. Throughout the film, Charlie and Donald are writing their own individual screenplays. Charlie is working on the adaptation of The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean (played by Meryl Streep). The Orchid Thief is about John Laroche (played by Chris Cooper), the latest in a series of men, so obsessed with orchids, that they will steal them and con them from people. John finds a way to poach orchids from protected Florida Everglades. Because the Florida Everglades formerly belonged to the Seminole Indians in its entirety, he hires several Indians who can pick the orchids without punishment. Donald is working on an original screenplay that he entitles The 3. Donald's screenplay is a brainless account of a protagonist with multiple personality disorder who is a detective, a serial killer, and a kidnapped person kept in the serial killer's basement all at the same time. (A humorous part of the film occurs when Charlie asks Donald how one person can be two people in the outside world and another person locked in a basement. Donald then thinks for a moment and responds "Trick photography"). Donald attends screenwriting seminars held by Robert McKee (Brian Cox), who urges his students to use the traditional formulaic stories in all of their writings. Between scenes involving Charlie and Donald, we witness the actual writing process of Orlean's book. While in Florida, Orlean meets Laroche. The character John Laroche is smelly, a smoker, and a swindler, albeit articulate, passionate, and unique. Orlean is attracted to and highly respects Laroche's more positive characteristics and develops a crush on him. Orlean and Laroche journey into the swamps to find orchids and discuss John's career, while at the same time growing close to one another. Donald's screenplay instantly makes millions. However, Charlie cannot write his own and, to further complicate matters, gradually becomes attracted to Susan Orlean. The direction of Spike Jonze and the writing of Charlie Kaufman are as equally commendable as their work with the 1999 film Being John Malkovich, but for different reasons. Being John Malkovich was a blend of quirky and surreal humor. Adaptation, on the other hand, is a bit more charming and more colorful with its rich dialogue and compelling characters. The performance of Cage as the twins is ultimately admirable. Cage delivers a comedic performance that showcases much range and talent in his abilities as an actor.Despite the fact that Cage has no makeup or hair tricks that could enable the audience to tell the twins apart from each other, we are able to tell them apart due to the strong amount of depth Cage puts into the character of each brother. Chris Cooper nearly steals the film as John Laroche. Cooper makes Laroche likable, despite the fact that Laroche commits questionable acts (he steals orchids, shares drugs with Orlean, creates pornography sites on the Internet, etc.). Chris Cooper's John Laroche joins Daniel Day-Lewis' Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York as one of the most memorable movie characters of this year. Meryl Streep delivers a terrific performance as Susan Orlean. Streep successfully plays the role with a comedic tone, and adds a dramatic tone when needed. There's a particular scene in which Streep is affected by Laroche's drugs that one must see to believe. Tilda Swinton and Brian Cox are quite fine is their supporting roles. Swinton plays Charlie's producer, who is growing suspicious about why he won't show her his first draft. Cox, as real-life Robert McKee, has only a few minutes in the film, yet is brilliant as the acrimonious screenwriting teacher. The film boils down to the final 20 minutes where we experience what some might call the actual adaptation of The Orchid Thief, and what others might call a convoluted mess. However, the ending is anything but a mess. It is absolutely enjoyable and certainly unforgettable. Adaptation eclipses all of the many great films provided in 2002 with its quirkiness and originality, and is highly recommended to all film buffs.
Rating:
Summary: INGENIOUS!!!
Review: "Adaptation" is an overwhelmingly brilliant and ingenious film that forces you to think and pay attention to every little detail in order to get the joke. This is not one of those movies where you can just sit down and enjoy, this is one that you really have to focus on and be prepared to be caught off guard. From the same people who brought you "Being John Malkovitch" comes this stunningly amazing and original film that forces you to use your brain. The movie is about Charlie Kaufman, a screenwriter who has agreed to adapt the book "The Orchid Thief" by Susan Orlean into a screenplay. He wants to make a movie that is true to itself and that isn't filled with sex, drugs, car chases, murder, and so on. However, he is having a lot of trouble trying to make it work for a screenplay and is experiencing some serious writer's block. It eventually gets to the point where the script he is writing is no longer about the book "The Orchid Thief," but is now about him trying to adapt the book into a movie and what has transpired to get himself there. That is ONLY a fraction of the movie. The rest I will not divulge because there are a lot of subtle surprises and twists. I was in absolute awe when the ending credits started to roll. I wanted to applaud, I wanted to yell, and I wanted to shout. My mouth was on the floor by the time it was all said and done, and it stayed in my head for the rest of the night. This is a superb movie that toyed with all of us from start to finish. And what was great was that half of the audience did not like it because they didn't "get it." For once, I "got it" and nobody else in that theatre did. It's usually the opposite with me, which was why I was so amazed. The subtleness and the cleverness that prevailed in this film was really a sight to see. Everything was there. The film was amazingly acted out. Nicholas Cage is triumphant as he plays both Charles and Donald Kaufman. He does such a great job that you forget it's the same actor. Meryl Streep is triumphant as Susan Orlean. And who can forget the wonderful Chris Cooper who played John Laroche; the orchid collector with no front teeth. He's a fabulous actor and this, and in my opinion this is one of his best roles ever. The film was so cleverly written and directed. I could go on and on, but it wouldn't mean much if I tell you it all. Better to see it in person. "Adaptation" is a wildly creative and original film that really reminds us why we go see movies in the first place. It also reminds us that good movies are still being made. This is one not everyone is going to like, and it is absolutely crucial that you pay attention to every little detail you encounter when watching it. The jokes and humor are there, but you must uncover them in their subtleness. This is a spectacular film on every front. Truly amazing.
Rating:
Summary: best and most unique movie of 2002!
Review: Gosh, where do I begin with this one? Adaptation took me on a journey that in parts, twisted me up, messed with my head, and then all made sense, only to be completely thrown for a loop again multiple times! What I'm saying is, just when I thought this movie was making a complete story, something else would happen that I'd completely not expect. A true gem of a film, Adaptation is best described as a movie that shows the struggles of making that very film. Charlie Kaufman (who wrote the screenplay) is played by Nic Cage. In the movie, Charlie has a brother Donaled (also played by Cage) who looks up to Charlie and admires his writing talents. Yet Charlie is suffering severely from trying to write his new screenplay which is an adapation of the book The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean. Well, that's what the movie is about, an adaptation of that book. Are you confused yet? Whereas Charlie hates wanting to write the formulaic screenplay that will sell well as it appeals to the John Q Public movie viewer, Donald takes that very path by taking a generic screenplay writing course and having ideas that all have been used before but sell. This annoys Charlie beyond belief and to make matters worse, Donald is able to sell his script while Charlie still struggles. In Charlie's adaptation of the book, he begins to truly admire Susan but yet refuses to meet her fearing the expectations she might put on him for adapting her book into a film. What Charlie doesn't know is Susan's real life that through the help of Donald, he finally understands....but that's when everything goes awry. Believe me, it's really hard to try to describe this film. However it's well worth watching b/c really what it does it makes fun of the Industry in so many ways. It's a film for movie goers who hate the generic films that our out there that do well only b/c most of the general public doesn't really want to see anything that makes you think. This is especially common right now b/c it's January. If you do not fall into this category, you need to see this film! It's like a rollercoaster ride with phenomenal acting on various levels. If you're a writer you should see b/c no doubt you'll relate to the struggles writers go through and might find this an inspiration for you. If you liked Being John Malkovich you have to see this film. I could go on but I won't....trying hard not to giveaway anything that would ruin it for you...please, enjoy this one as one of those rare films Hollywood puts out that sheds light on an industry that really only caters to the mass-viewing easy-to-please public w/out caring about "smart" films.
Rating:
Summary: Intriguing structure; solid character exploration
Review: If you remove the mystique of the story within a story, the paradoxical, nesting-boxed movie about making the movie you are watching, the structure that flouts conventional structure, this film is STILL great for the unparallelled glimpse it gives into the mind of what I am tempted to call a modern Woody Allen type: an artist and fringe intellectual full of self-doubt and self-loathing, articulate in mind, but so self-conscious as to be struck verbally and mentally numb by the proximity of real people (especially women), ineffectual, obsessing, worried to within an inch of death all the time. Many people may more truly know this type through the work of Robert Crumb, who, over the last 30 years, has turned withering, appalling, painful self-examination into high entertainment and art. I am not saying Charles Kaufman is really like this, necessarily. But his insight into the lives and mental processes of those who are like the hero of this film is absolutely uncanny. Nicolas Cage is to be credited with investing this difficult character with enough humanity for the audience to care about. It's a wonderful job of acting. But even as it is written, Adaptation is a brilliant (and I would add 'privileged') look at a variety of mind and sensibility that has never been addressed as fully or successfully on the screen as it is here. A definite, unreserved 5 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Adaptation
Review: Charlie Kaufman doesn't believe in himself. He is lonely. He isn't good with women. He's even had an original screenplay accepted and turned into a quirky, but acclaimed, feature film (Being John Malkovich). Yet Charlie Kaufman is miserable. His circumstance is one of many similar human conditions which "Adaptation" set out to explore. The results, more so than not, are interesting, though the ending robs us of some of the satisfaction which we seek. To understand "Adaptation", you must first realize where it is coming from. The director, Spike Jonze, also directed 1999's oddball film "Being John Malkovich". As noted earlier, that film was written by Charlie Kaufman. "Adaptation" opens on the set of "Being John Malkovich", during filming in 1998. We see Nicolas Cage as Charlie. He has just been handed the task of adapting a novel by journalist Susan Orlean, titled "The Orchid Thief". The story is based off of an article she'd written about a man named John LaRoche, who filled his time by thieving precious orchids from nature preserves. Orlean has spent a great deal of the book discussing the nature and beauty of the flora which LaRoche seeks. The story focuses so much on just the flowers, and is so un-structured, that Charlie can find no way to adapt it into a workable screenplay. Thus is the story of "Adaptation". Charlie Kaufman can't find a way to make The Orchid Thief into a movie, so we have a movie about the trials and tribulations of writers block, of Hollywood back-story, and of people's self-doubt. Charlie has a twin brother living at home (also played by Nicolas Cage), who is everything he is not: confident, successful, good with women, capable of writing with no problem, and happy. For quite a long time, I was convinced that the twin brother did not really exist, that he was just a figment of Charlie's imagination - a projection of his own unrealized ego. As the brother began interacting with other people, however, my assumption proved invalid. The underrated character actor Chris Cooper stars as LaRoche, a man of modest means, with no front teeth. Cooper excels in the role. He owns it. Meryl Streep co-stars as Susan Orlean, and brings a depth and loneliness to the part that is striking. In fact, that is what much of this movie is about. Kaufman, LaRoche, Orlean - they are all lonely. Orlean's life, more than any of the other characters', is a perfect example of feeling alone even when you're with someone. The direction, writing, and acting all come together to work marvelously in this area. The last 1/4 of "Adaptation" is a joke (an intentional joke). Things go screwy, and it bears almost no resemblance to the first part of the film, save the inclusion of the characters that we have come to know. This threw me, and left a bad taste in my mouth coming out of the theater. Upon further thought, however, I find that, knowing it's coming, the last act does fit with the rest of the film, in a twisted sort of way. Just be ready for it. "Adaptation" is an example of creative Hollywood writing
at its best. The story is certainly different, and the characters are all drawn with great brushtrokes. These are real people, with real needs, and real pain that needs healing. Cage, Cooper, and Streep breathe such wonderful life into the characters, that the film enraptured me from beginning to end. I may not like every thing about it, but I admire the story it tells. It's one of the films which helped make 2002 such a good year for the cinema.
Rating:
Summary: A WACKY MOVIE WITH SOME GOOD LAUGHS
Review: Sitting down to write this review I am challenged in the prospect of explaining ADAPTATION to someone who has never seen it. In a nutshell, this film is about a middle-aged very self-consciousness screenwriter named Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) who is attempting to write a movie adaptation of Susan Orlean's (Meryl Streep) best-selling novel 'The Orchid Thief'. What follows is a tale of Orlean beginning her search for love and passion that she feels her life lacks. She turns her back on her loveless marriage and pursues John Laroche (Chris Cooper), the orchid hunter who was the subject of her book, for personal fulfillment. At the same time, Charlie is struggling to write and feels that he must delve deeper into the relationship between Susan and John in an effort to create inspiration for his writing. All three of their lives become entangled in the swamps of Florida. I applaud Spike Jonze for creating a strange, albeit witty, movie like ADAPTATION. The performances of Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper are admirable. But I couldn't help feeling a tad creepy at the protrayal of the twins of Nicolas Cage. There was a quality about it that bothered me. I am not sure whether Charlie's twin brother really existed or was simply a figment of his imagination. I still am uncertain whether Donald was Charlie's alter-ego. Regardless, ADAPTATION was a good movie and there were many scenes when I laughed out loud. Seeing this movie is worth your time and effort.
Rating:
Summary: The Over-considered Life
Review: I don't see the final act of this awesome film as a betrayal or sell out. I see it as a demonstration cooked up by Fate (one that has been prophesied and foreshadowed by Robert McKee when he verbally assaults Charles Kaufman for asserting like a fool that nothing happens in real life) of the self-obvious fact that if you are living your life and interacting with other human beings, things do indeed happen. --That the self-loathing wallflower who thinks brilliant thoughts but can't speak a coherent English sentence to a nice-looking lady needs to start being a little (okay, a LOT) more proactive in his approach to life. It is a demonstration Charles desperately needs. That would be the old fashioned Hollywood/Twilight Zone Twist reading of the ending. I know that is not nearly post-modern, hip and ironic enough to be widely accepted or taken seriously. Fine. But I cannot accept that the last half hour is simply a veering of the plot into melodrama after a complex and caring buildup. There is something more going on here. There is a suggestion, in fact, that the Donald character doesn't exist as flesh and blood, but is one as-he-sees-himself self to the overthinking Charles. Just as he has a fat, dumb, ineffectual self he thinks about all the time, and that we see and hear about incessantly, there is also the relatively more suave, effective and spontaneous self (who is always doing a more interesting thing in any setting where the two find themselves at the same time, on the movie set or at the party) that we don't. They are two parts of the same self. So Donald could be yet another fantasy extension of Charles, just less clearly pointed out for us. I remember Charles telling Donald, before Donald went to meet and interview Susan Orlean, NOT to be a jerk or an A-hole. It is easy to see this as his own natural advice to himself when he is meeting someone to whom he is secretly attracted. Also, Donald, in Susan's office interviewing her, makes a point to ask if there is any chemistry or attraction between her and LaRoche. Why would Donald even care to ask that? It's a question of great import to Charles, though. It seems to be this very question that sparks the Rear Window moment of voyeurism that leads them to follow her to Florida and sends everything spinning out of control. Charles tells Donald he is twisted as the latter watches Susan with binoculars. As we saw, he could be counted on to caustically upbraid himself verbally in just this way if he was all alone with the binoculars watching Susan. The last 20 minutes is, or could be, a fed up, desperate writer giving in to the inevitability of formula, with a furious "Okay, I'll end this YOUR way, then!" You could say that as soon as Charles peeks into LaRoche's bedroom window, his work-- and his fragile fantasy about Orlean-- is finished, and he can go home. The snapping gators and spectacular chase never existed except as creatures of Charles' final caving in to the requirements of big commercial films. The film is about the interior and exterior self, the thinking vs. acting self, life vs. dream. It's about the Charles and the Donald in all of us.
|
